Shannon Sharpe on Kirk Herbstreit's criticism of First Take: "If we're going to be on the same team, if we're gonna work for the same network, don't do that. Kirk, Chris Fowler, I promise you, if you ever mention any platform that I'm on again talking about 'I wonder what they're… pic.twitter.com/4IPLUU5rYy

— Awful Announcing (@awfulannouncing) December 23, 2024

🤣 “You single-handedly setback the SEC dominance argument by at least 2 Sean McDonough ESPN broadcasts, maybe even 3, it was that bad” https://t.co/8bcscoBbd3

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) December 23, 2024

I predict we are going to go back to the BCS computer models within 5-6 years...

“I hope next year the committee won’t get caught up with what social media and a lot of the ‘fringe’ fans get caught up with which is… wins.”

This might be the most laughable take in the history of CFB analysis. They’re trying to tell us WINNING GAMES doesn’t matter 🤣 https://t.co/bIR12rF9Zi

— RedditCFB (@RedditCFB) December 23, 2024

Going on @finebaum today at 3:00 pm ET to discuss this:

Paul Finebaum's position on Alabama and the playoff committee is the biggest threat to college football imaginable https://t.co/TARJZDLTZS

— Ari Wasserman (@AriWasserman) December 23, 2024

It should matter if you play someone with a pulse but more importantly it should matter if you WIN your games. If you lose, whether to someone with a pulse or someone who just gets lucky, that should be a huge ding on a resume for the CFP.

"I think the disappointment is for those that want to question whether those teams belong [in the CFP]... We see teams in the Super Bowl that lose by large margins..." - Troy Aikman

"I think what it does is it diminishes the job that the teams that won did." - Joe Buck 🏈🎙️ pic.twitter.com/GKRSk8IZ49

— Awful Announcing (@awfulannouncing) December 24, 2024

Duplicate post

cowboycwr said:

---

It should matter if you play someone with a pulse but more importantly it should matter if you WIN your games. If you lose, whether to someone with a pulse or someone who just gets lucky, that should be a huge ding on a resume for the CFP.

---

I actually think losses to good teams shouldn't hurt you too bad. We need to incentivize quality out-of-conference matchups, and the only way to do that is to do what college basketball has done and give the teams that win those games a huge boost and the teams that lose those games some grace.

There needs to be a punishment for too many losses (three should be disqualifying most years), but one or two losses to good teams should be forgivable.

Losses to mediocre or bad teams are the ones that should really be punished IMO.

We really need to create a system in college football like the one college basketball has with the NET rankings. Have Quad 1, 2, 3 and 4 wins and loses, so everyone is judged on the same scale.

I remain incredibly frustrated and disappointed in the commentary regarding the CFP from this past weekend...Games like that happen all the time...Even in the NFLpic.twitter.com/CMd5pf2nNT

— Joel Klatt (@joelklatt) December 23, 2024

While people complain about CFP byes or seeding, the NFL is set to have its second-best NFC team play on the road at an 8-win team in the first round.

This is normal. You reward divisions and conference championships, or else they don't matter as much. pic.twitter.com/PUdQPPvpKC

— Chris Vannini (@ChrisVannini) December 24, 2024

This is how team talent (which then impacts strength of schedule) is determined

So Texas got 2 years of team talent benefit from having him on the roster, didn’t develop him at all, & now BYU gets a worse team strength for the same guy

Glad ESPN wants this over who wins games! https://t.co/s3dlVIrljw

— CFB Home (@CFBHome) December 24, 2024

This whole postseason has been an absolute gift, you just have to know where to look. 😍 pic.twitter.com/7FF2AruOU7

— RedditCFB (@RedditCFB) December 25, 2024

Pushes espn propaganda all week https://t.co/3DdmMaPgnR pic.twitter.com/2ngsIKjJnP

— 𝙋𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙡 𝙍𝙞𝙘𝙠 (@PistolRick) December 25, 2024

cowboycwr said:

---

It should matter if you play someone with a pulse but more importantly it should matter if you WIN your games. If you lose, whether to someone with a pulse or someone who just gets lucky, that should be a huge ding on a resume for the CFP.

---

Let's cut the BS, Bama lost to Vandy. They had one good game. According to Bama Conference membership matters, unless you are the B10 or anyone else than it doesn't. This is positioning to get the most money, if it wasn't Bama at 12, it would be Old Miss at 16 or Vandy at 64. It is what the SEC does.

Joel Klatt and Gus Johnson threw some shade at the SEC and weighed in on the CFP debate. pic.twitter.com/K9YrfRD1TI

— Awful Announcing (@awfulannouncing) December 28, 2024

Sam Leavitt on facing off against Quinn Ewers:

"I've watched him for a fair amount of time now. I'm just excited for the opportunity. People keep counting me out since day one, and I'm gonna go prove why I'm the better quarterback."@SunDevilSource pic.twitter.com/RTKAJhpCzb

— Blake Niemann (@Blakes_Take2) December 28, 2024

cowboycwr said:

---

It should matter if you play someone with a pulse but more importantly it should matter if you WIN your games. If you lose, whether to someone with a pulse or someone who just gets lucky, that should be a huge ding on a resume for the CFP.

---

This should be obvious but with too many talking heads it's all secsecsec. Everyone needs to learn to ignore Finebaum. His opinions are not worth the time.

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

It should matter if you play someone with a pulse but more importantly it should matter if you WIN your games. If you lose, whether to someone with a pulse or someone who just gets lucky, that should be a huge ding on a resume for the CFP.

---

I actually think losses to good teams shouldn't hurt you too bad. We need to incentivize quality out-of-conference matchups, and the only way to do that is to do what college basketball has done and give the teams that win those games a huge boost and the teams that lose those games some grace.

There needs to be a punishment for too many losses (three should be disqualifying most years), but one or two losses to good teams should be forgivable.

Losses to mediocre or bad teams are the ones that should really be punished IMO.

We really need to create a system in college football like the one college basketball has with the NET rankings. Have Quad 1, 2, 3 and 4 wins and loses, so everyone is judged on the same scale.

---

I have argued for awhile that the cfp should resemble March Madness as much as possible. It should be relatively simple to create a computer model with quad 1, quad 2, etc rankings for each team and ranking them accordingly. It also would be helpful to have multiple statistical analyses like KenPom, Torvik, & EvanMaya offering their perspectives. The common feature: it's about who a team plays and the wins & losses on their record: the results of games instead of some elitists with a financial stake in the outcome.

historian said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

It should matter if you play someone with a pulse but more importantly it should matter if you WIN your games. If you lose, whether to someone with a pulse or someone who just gets lucky, that should be a huge ding on a resume for the CFP.

---

I actually think losses to good teams shouldn't hurt you too bad. We need to incentivize quality out-of-conference matchups, and the only way to do that is to do what college basketball has done and give the teams that win those games a huge boost and the teams that lose those games some grace.

There needs to be a punishment for too many losses (three should be disqualifying most years), but one or two losses to good teams should be forgivable.

Losses to mediocre or bad teams are the ones that should really be punished IMO.

We really need to create a system in college football like the one college basketball has with the NET rankings. Have Quad 1, 2, 3 and 4 wins and loses, so everyone is judged on the same scale.

---

I have argued for awhile that the cfp should resemble March Madness as much as possible. It should be relatively simple to create a computer model with quad 1, quad 2, etc rankings for each team and ranking them accordingly. It also would be helpful to have multiple statistical analyses like KenPom, Torvik, & EvanMaya offering their perspectives. The common feature: it's about who a team plays and the wins & losses on their record: the results of games instead of some elitists with a financial stake in the outcome.

---

Agreed. This shouldn't be that hard. Reward wins against good and great teams. Punish losses against mediocre and bad teams. Come up with a system that ranks teams objectively on those two basic principles and I'll be happy.

historian said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

It should matter if you play someone with a pulse but more importantly it should matter if you WIN your games. If you lose, whether to someone with a pulse or someone who just gets lucky, that should be a huge ding on a resume for the CFP.

---

This should be obvious but with too many talking heads it's all secsecsec. Everyone needs to learn to ignore Finebaum. His opinions are not worth the time.

---

Finebaum reminds me of Dick Vitale riding the Big East's jock in basketball in the 80s.

PaperBear89 said:

---

historian said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

It should matter if you play someone with a pulse but more importantly it should matter if you WIN your games. If you lose, whether to someone with a pulse or someone who just gets lucky, that should be a huge ding on a resume for the CFP.

---

This should be obvious but with too many talking heads it's all secsecsec. Everyone needs to learn to ignore Finebaum. His opinions are not worth the time.

---

Finebaum reminds me of Dick Vitale riding the Big East's jock in basketball in the 80s.

---

But Dickie V was likable...

FLBear5630 said:

---

PaperBear89 said:

---

historian said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

It should matter if you play someone with a pulse but more importantly it should matter if you WIN your games. If you lose, whether to someone with a pulse or someone who just gets lucky, that should be a huge ding on a resume for the CFP.

---

This should be obvious but with too many talking heads it's all secsecsec. Everyone needs to learn to ignore Finebaum. His opinions are not worth the time.

---

Finebaum reminds me of Dick Vitale riding the Big East's jock in basketball in the 80s.

---

But Dickie V was likable...

---

Agreed. Just like Lee Corso was entertaining before he went downhill.

I don't get the appeal of Finebaum. He is not funny, likeable, charming, charismatic...he's just a grumpy old SEC fart.

Finebaum reminds me of Walter, a sourpuss curmudgeon:



Except Walter is entertaining.

There will be “in-depth discussions” about not guaranteeing conference champs the top 4 @CFBPlayoff seeds in 2025, sources said. Top 5 conference champs still would get in playoff but rankings would determine seeds, sources said. This would require unanimous approval by all stake…

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) December 30, 2024

FLBear5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

It should matter if you play someone with a pulse but more importantly it should matter if you WIN your games. If you lose, whether to someone with a pulse or someone who just gets lucky, that should be a huge ding on a resume for the CFP.

---

Let's cut the BS, Bama lost to Vandy. They had one good game. According to Bama Conference membership matters, unless you are the B10 or anyone else than it doesn't. This is positioning to get the most money, if it wasn't Bama at 12, it would be Old Miss at 16 or Vandy at 64. It is what the SEC does.

---

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was NOT pushing for bama.

They have two losses to bad teams and a third loss to a good team. That should keep them out. But Indiana didn't have any good wins, even against teams with winning records. That should also have hurt them.

Wins should matter. But once you get past the top 3 or 4 teams it should matter who you beat and who you lost to. If you have two losses against winning teams and another school has two losses against mediocre teams then the first team should be ranked higher.

cowboycwr said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

It should matter if you play someone with a pulse but more importantly it should matter if you WIN your games. If you lose, whether to someone with a pulse or someone who just gets lucky, that should be a huge ding on a resume for the CFP.

---

Let's cut the BS, Bama lost to Vandy. They had one good game. According to Bama Conference membership matters, unless you are the B10 or anyone else than it doesn't. This is positioning to get the most money, if it wasn't Bama at 12, it would be Old Miss at 16 or Vandy at 64. It is what the SEC does.

---

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was NOT pushing for bama.

They have two losses to bad teams and a third loss to a good team. That should keep them out. But Indiana didn't have any good wins, even against teams with winning records. That should also have hurt them.

Wins should matter. But once you get past the top 3 or 4 teams it should matter who you beat and who you lost to. If you have two losses against winning teams and another school has two losses against mediocre teams then the first team should be ranked higher.

---

BYU deserved the shot more than IU after IU got killed by OSU. They were not competitive. BYU was a good team, better than IU.

Agreed. Too bad we didn't see BYU & Indiana in a bowl game. That would have been fun and would have clearly established the truth of your statement.

cowboycwr said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

It should matter if you play someone with a pulse but more importantly it should matter if you WIN your games. If you lose, whether to someone with a pulse or someone who just gets lucky, that should be a huge ding on a resume for the CFP.

---

Let's cut the BS, Bama lost to Vandy. They had one good game. According to Bama Conference membership matters, unless you are the B10 or anyone else than it doesn't. This is positioning to get the most money, if it wasn't Bama at 12, it would be Old Miss at 16 or Vandy at 64. It is what the SEC does.

---

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was NOT pushing for bama.

They have two losses to bad teams and a third loss to a good team. That should keep them out. But Indiana didn't have any good wins, even against teams with winning records. That should also have hurt them.

Wins should matter. But once you get past the top 3 or 4 teams it should matter who you beat and who you lost to. If you have two losses against winning teams and another school has two losses against mediocre teams then the first team should be ranked higher.

---

Outside of nonconference scheduling, which is usually completed years in advance, you can't control how good the teams you beat are. It's not Indiana's fault, for instance, that Michigan and Washington -- playoff teams a year ago -- fell off a cliff this season.

For this reason, I'm OK just saying outright that any power conference team that goes 11-1 in the regular season deserves a playoff spot. I'm also OK saying that a second regular-season loss should disqualify a team that played the type of schedule that Indiana or SMU did this year.

To me, a strong schedule buys you one extra loss. But once you get to two losses with a weak schedule or three losses with a strong one, you should fall to the back of the list of playoff hopefuls and should only get a spot if there aren't enough other worthy teams to fill out the bracket.

FLBear5630 said:

---

PaperBear89 said:

---

historian said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

It should matter if you play someone with a pulse but more importantly it should matter if you WIN your games. If you lose, whether to someone with a pulse or someone who just gets lucky, that should be a huge ding on a resume for the CFP.

---

This should be obvious but with too many talking heads it's all secsecsec. Everyone needs to learn to ignore Finebaum. His opinions are not worth the time.

---

Finebaum reminds me of Dick Vitale riding the Big East's jock in basketball in the 80s.

---

But Dickie V was likable...

---

And acknowledged and respected good teams in other conferences.

In fact, this is such a false equivalence. Vitale was a player, coach, broadcaster -- really understood the game. Finebaum is just an Alabama superfan with a microphone.

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

It should matter if you play someone with a pulse but more importantly it should matter if you WIN your games. If you lose, whether to someone with a pulse or someone who just gets lucky, that should be a huge ding on a resume for the CFP.

---

Let's cut the BS, Bama lost to Vandy. They had one good game. According to Bama Conference membership matters, unless you are the B10 or anyone else than it doesn't. This is positioning to get the most money, if it wasn't Bama at 12, it would be Old Miss at 16 or Vandy at 64. It is what the SEC does.

---

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was NOT pushing for bama.

They have two losses to bad teams and a third loss to a good team. That should keep them out. But Indiana didn't have any good wins, even against teams with winning records. That should also have hurt them.

Wins should matter. But once you get past the top 3 or 4 teams it should matter who you beat and who you lost to. If you have two losses against winning teams and another school has two losses against mediocre teams then the first team should be ranked higher.

---

Outside of nonconference scheduling, which is usually completed years in advance, you can't control how good the teams you beat are. It's not Indiana's fault, for instance, that Michigan and Washington -- playoff teams a year ago -- fell off a cliff this season.

For this reason, I'm OK just saying outright that any power conference team that goes 11-1 in the regular season deserves a playoff spot. I'm also OK saying that a second regular-season loss should disqualify a team that played the type of schedule that Indiana or SMU did this year.

To me, a strong schedule buys you one extra loss. But once you get to two losses with a weak schedule or three losses with a strong one, you should fall to the back of the list of playoff hopefuls and should only get a spot if there aren't enough other worthy teams to fill out the bracket.

---

You are right on the scheduling. Each year is stand alone, Bama missed a year. Not the end of the world. IU and SMU provided access, it is actually good for CFB legally and politically.

The prices have plummeted in less than a week. Here they were a day after Christmas:

Rose: $228
Fiesta: $172
Sugar: $115
Peach: $49 https://t.co/w7XYEIDUzh

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) December 31, 2024

The most polarizing program in the country and the lone remaining power independent, Notre Dame hasn’t won a major bowl in 31 years.

The skid spans 10 games, eight different opponents and six head coaches.

Is this, finally, their time?https://t.co/dLPi1u8iux

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) December 31, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

The most polarizing program in the country and the lone remaining power independent, Notre Dame hasn’t won a major bowl in 31 years.

The skid spans 10 games, eight different opponents and six head coaches.

Is this, finally, their time?https://t.co/dLPi1u8iux

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) December 31, 2024

---

Does a playoff win not count as a major bowl win? That's stupid.

The names of these quarterfinal games is irrelevant. And whipping Indiana in the first round was a big deal.

Jack Bauer said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

PaperBear89 said:

---

historian said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

It should matter if you play someone with a pulse but more importantly it should matter if you WIN your games. If you lose, whether to someone with a pulse or someone who just gets lucky, that should be a huge ding on a resume for the CFP.

---

This should be obvious but with too many talking heads it's all secsecsec. Everyone needs to learn to ignore Finebaum. His opinions are not worth the time.

---

Finebaum reminds me of Dick Vitale riding the Big East's jock in basketball in the 80s.

---

But Dickie V was likable...

---

Agreed. Just like Lee Corso was entertaining before he went downhill.

I don't get the appeal of Finebaum. He is not funny, likeable, charming, charismatic...he's just a grumpy old SEC fart.

---

Prison b++++++ for the SEC.